Here here Jamie - very well put!

Hi Michael, Alistair Campbell would be proud of you...if Ged Gibbons genuinely cared about variety he would have made more then ONE pitch available on the whole expanse of Church Street and Lord Street. This is in no way about variety...this is about an unelected body, namely the BID, having an undue and undemocratic influence on policy formation and attempting to control what happens in public spaces. It is ludicrous for you to attempt to present the BID as champions of culture and variety. If an Individual busker is creating a genuine statutory nuisance then there is already a wide range of powers available to the council to deal with them, as well as the polite and civil option of asking them to move around a bit. Threatening vulnerable people with trespass prosecutions and verbal bullying is completely unacceptable. The comparison with Putin's Russia is for rhetorical effect I grant you, but the authoritarian and anti-democratic spirit of the Council's policy has been lost on no-one, and unless it is dropped and a genuine conversation and collaboration can begin, this dialogue will continue in front of a judge.

Hi Mike, Liverpool's City Central BID, of which you are the Communication's Manager, has shown its true colours in pushing for and defending a restrictive, absurd and legally-questionable policy that was constructed without democratic consultation.

 
The 'Simon Cowell Cops' aspect of the policy has made the Liverpool administration, of which the City Central BID is an integral part, the laughing stock of the national press.

 
And contrary to the repeated claims of Ged Gibbons, CEO of Liverpool's City Central BID (and your boss), information acquired under Freedom of Information legislation clearly shows that there are so few complaints about buskers from the public that the council do not even bother to keep a formal record of complaints. Your claim that the BID is a democratic body, although true in some sense, is totally irrelevant to the present debate - Jonny accused the BID of HAVING an undue and undemocratic influence, not of BEING an undemocratic body.

 
It is widely understood that the City Central BID has spearheaded this shambolic policy on the back of telephone calls from a few aggrieved employees of M&S and Primark. We know, too, that the public and affected street performers were not properly consulted whilst the policy was being drafted.

 
How, then, can you defend the claim that the BID - your employer - does not enjoy an undue and undemocratic influence in Liverpool's corridoors of power? I put it to you that you cannot. This is rather a shame, since I imagine that these are just the sorts of claims which members of Liverpool's administration, if not you, might very well soon have to defend in the High Court.

Hi Mike.
You say the BID want to see more variety on the streets; so just let people pitch up and do their thing? Why make it harder than needs be by asking buskers to acquire a permit, insurance, and to be to be drafted in to play at a particular time and place by a man in a suit? It seems you are purposefully trying to put people of busking, what with the fear of the implications should they 'not meet standards' ect.
To claim that liverpool is a city of music and culture and then to police and regulate those very things is a total hypocrisy; To say the music of the streets should be regulated is to have totally missed the point and chance of having variety, culture and surprise on the streets. It is an embarrassment on behalf of City Council to firstly think it within their right and secondly within their power to attempt to water down the should be vibrant streets of liverpool.
Wheres the life, soul, and originality of an act which has been given permission to play because it 'pleases everyone'?
On top of this, I imagine the 'Simon Cowell cops' are working for the council rather than the music industry for a reason; that being music isn't their calling. So what right do they have in choosing and deciding what is 'acceptable' or 'tasteful' or 'good enough' for people to hear/ see on the streets. How can they speak for everyone? This is where I feel and fear that if this law were to be in place, we would in fact LOSE culture and variety from our streets as only the borderline boring and watered down acts would be allowed to play, as to 'please everyone'. Or rather 'not to offend' the easily offended.
Music must sometimes be an important voice on the streets as well as entertainment. To police and regulate this through a higher body is to potentially rob the city of it's life soul and culture and in no way would it promote diversity and encourage variety. Perhaps some acts who end up on the street's won't be acceptable, but those rare cases can be dealt with individually. Surely to take that route is to save paper work and precious police time? It seems ridiculous that the council want to audition and license a potential busker and then arrange a time and place deemed 'appropriate'(in their eyes only)for the busker to play; All this before any sort of nuisance has even been given the chance to occur! It seems less hassle for everyone if we just let the city live and breathe naturally with the days intake of buskers and should an act be reported, then it is a matter worthy of police time. In the meantime instead of having to deal with the extra paperwork which would undoubtably be more of a nuisance than the buskers themselves should the law be in place, the police can actually get on with their job and deal with more pressing matters.
Rationally speaking what threat can a person with a guitar and a want to share music really pose to a society? I ask the public, wouldn't you feel safer in the knowing that the police and council were doing all they can to keep our streets safe from gun crime, robbery and the likes rather than keeping us 'safe' from the true music of the streets?
As peter guy has said, it is in our hands now. Support buskers and keep the streets alive with music and culture!